New poll shows Obama getting the most blame for the bad economy

posted at 9:21 am on July 23, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

In 2009, Barack Obama predicted that he had only three years to turn the American economy around. “Look,” Obama told the Today audience, “if I can’t turn the economy around in three years, I will be looking at a one-term proposition.” With the economy stuck in stagnation and starting to slide backwards toward recession, voters have decided Obama is right. A new poll from The Hill shows that two-thirds of likely voters blame bad economic policy for the current state of the economy — and more blame Obama than anyone else:

Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill.

It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy. Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame, followed by 23 percent who say Congress is the culprit. Twenty percent point the finger at Wall Street, and 18 percent cite former President George W. Bush. …

The poll, conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, found 53 percent of voters say Obama has taken the wrong actions and has slowed the economy down. Forty-two percent said he has taken the right actions to revive the economy, while six percent said they were not sure.

The numbers are bad for Obama almost across the board. Overwhelming numbers of both men (65/26) and women (67/26) believe the current economic malaise is the result of bad policy rather than an unavoidable consequence of the 2008 crash. Not a single demographic thinks otherwise, not even self-described liberals (46/39). Even without any other data, an incumbent President would face daunting odds in re-election with these numbers, since most voters assign blame or credit for economic to the White House.

But the numbers just get worse. Despite Obama’s insistence over the last few months on blaming the economy he “inherited” — or perhaps because of his attempts to shift blame — Bush now gets the least amount of blame for the status quo, with only 18%. Both men and women put Bush last on the list, and both put Obama highest on the list. That’s true in every single age demographic, including the key youngest-voters group, which splits blame 32/19 between Obama and Bush. Only among blacks (19/53), Democrats (14/35), and self-described liberals (7/36) does Bush get more blame. Every income demographic assigns more blame to Obama than Bush.

Why now? Perhaps it’s because voters have tired of hearing Obama refuse to accept responsibility for the failure of his own economic policies. It might also be because George Bush hasn’t been on a ballot in eight years, and voters aren’t terribly interested in having another election about him. Whatever the reason, this poll indicates that Obama will have to answer for the results of his economic policies of the last three years — and if that’s the case, then we’re looking at a one-term proposition, especially with Obama offering voters nothing new.

Romney, he says, wants to do two things: Cut taxes for the rich and massively deregulate the economy.

“The truth is,” Obama says, “we tried (that) for almost a decade, and it didn’t work.”

Bush-era tax cuts and deregulation, he argues “resulted in the most sluggish job growth in decades” along with “rising inequality, surpluses turned into deficits, culminating in the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes.”

There’s just one problem. Obama’s got his history wrong.

First, Bush was no big deregulator.

In fact, under Bush, the size and cost of the federal government’s regulatory machinery increased dramatically, as Bush imposed dozens of major new rules.

Regulatory staffing, for example, climbed 44% during the Bush years , according to a study by researchers at Washington University in St. Louis and George Washington University.

By contrast, regulatory staffing was essentially flat under President Clinton.

Likewise, federal spending on regulations shot up 45% in real terms under Bush, compared with 26% under Clinton.

And now you know why Republicans aren’t keen on returning to Bush-era regulatory policies, either.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

OT: Speaking of it being All Bush’s Fault, Isikoff says it’s Bush’s fault that the Colorado shooter had a weapon that was illegal 10 years ago:

There was an assault weapons ban in this country from 1994 to 2004 that was lifted under President Bush. President Obama had pledged during his campaign to restore it. He has dropped that issue, so the assault, that AR-15 is a legal weapon now but was not 10 years ago.

You should go volunteer with your local GOP so you can get a feel of what we are up against this year. Romney can use your help.

DannoJyd on July 23, 2012 at 10:33 AM

You know, I wasn’t trying to be snarky, so I hope you weren’t responding as if I were. I was not a Romney supporter. I wanted Newt. I watched Romney’s speech in PA last week and it gave me hope that whatever he lacks in conservative credentials, he DOES get this country and what is important. I think it’s unrealistic at this point to think you are proving anything by voting for Johnson. If you can’t support Romney over Obama, why are you bothering to do all the awesome things you are doing? Just for the down ticket races?

As for my participation, I do what I can. I am ill, so physically, there is not much I can do, but I talk to everyone I can. I know that just voting isn’t enough anymore.

As for my participation, I do what I can. I am ill, so physically, there is not much I can do, but I talk to everyone I can. I know that just voting isn’t enough anymore.

Night Owl on July 23, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Neither was I trying to be ‘snarky, and I meant what I posted.

I’m sorry that your health isn’t what you wish it were, but [hope I'm not pushing] we do get people that show up for a day or two. My sick father-in-law [85 and uses a cane] assisted in putting together campaign materials and his effort was much appreciated.

We both wanted Newt, but today I need reasons to keep voters excited enough to vote. IMHO, Johnson could be the reason people will vote if Romney keeps pulling a McCain like effort.

People in my area vote for good reasons. I wish like anything Romney would start giving them those reasons.

I’m sorry that your health isn’t what you wish it were, but [hope I'm not pushing] we do get people that show up for a day or two. My sick father-in-law [85 and uses a cane] assisted in putting together campaign materials and his effort was much appreciated.

No, you’re not pushing. I would say your father-in-law is in better shape than me, but as I said, I am willing to do whatever I can.

I was reading some of the other threads and it seems like a lot of folks are more interested in the PSU thing or other topics than this one and I really think that if we don’t win this year we are in real trouble. We may be there already but this is our only chance.

This is a dream come true. If the American people finally get the blame right for the economy, it’s all over for the occupier. Someone needs to drive home the Frank-Waters performance at the Fannie Mae hearings in ’05(?).

And yet Gallup curiously continues to march towards irrelevancy today and states that Mr. Obama’s job approval is…rising?

Really Gallup? With what demographic unaffected, uninterested, unconcerned with our current economic situation, the grotesque executive mistakes, ineptness, laziness and general inaction would that be?

Was the poll sample taken from a group of mute ferrets where a simple squeak was taken as yes?

President Obama had pledged during his campaign to restore it. He has dropped that issue

Sounds like more of JugEars’ incompetence to me. Kinda like Gitmo closing, ending Iraq/Afghanistan in 18 months, holding unemployment under 8%, not losing your insurance plan or doctor, oh, how I could go on!

As far as those of you who are voting for Johnson, you are wasting your vote on the most critical election in our lifetime. Romney wasn’t my first choice but we CANNOT afford 4 more years of the thin-skinned socialist Obama! You people are “cutting off your noses to spite your own faces.” Wake up before it is too late!

As far as those of you who are voting for Johnson, you are wasting your vote on the most critical election in our lifetime. Romney wasn’t my first choice but we CANNOT afford 4 more years of the thin-skinned socialist Obama! You people are “cutting off your noses to spite your own faces.” Wake up before it is too late!

jqc1970 on July 23, 2012 at 12:56 PM

In the entire history of the Libertarian Party, all but one of their Presidential candidates has ended up with 0.5% of the total vote or less. And the only one who did better than that only got 1.1% of the popular vote, in 1980.

That 1980 candidate was Ed Clark. And his VP candidate? One of the Koch Brothers (David).

Since 2000, the Libertarian candidates have gotten the following vote results:

We nominated a lover of these regulations Mitt Romney. He loved regulations in Mass.

Steveangell on July 23, 2012 at 2:45 PM

No, he was the Governor of a Commonwealth that was controlled by the Opposition Party.

Remember, as Governor, Romney vetoed 8 separate sections of the MA Health Care Bill when he signed it into law because they had too much regulation. All 8 of his vetoes were promptly overridden by the Democrats.

We nominated a lover of these regulations Mitt Romney. He loved regulations in Mass.

Steveangell on July 23, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Who is this “we” to which you refer? You’ve already said that you aren’t voting for Romney under any circumstances. Just keep the piehole closed for the next 4 years should Obama get reelected. I’m a libertarian and I don’t like Romney, but — unlike you — I will do everything I can to get him elected BECAUSE I WANT THAT IDIOT OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE. I’d also like to abandon my professional and capital strikes, which I will NOT do as long as Obama is in office.

Hot air has a headline from Gallup w/ job approval up for Obama for 3rd straight quarter. How are we supposed to square these two results?

earlgrey133 on July 23, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Gallup only polls registered voters, which provides a much less reliable predictor. Although I don’t put much stock in polls prior to Labour Day and those using RVS, I did some research back in April, which was kind of interesting: